Last week's issue discussed the source for
performing melacha in a life threatening situation (pikuach
nefesh) as well as the nature of the mandate to perform melacha.
One of the issues discussed was whether Shabbat is suspended in the
face of pikuach nefesh (hutrah) or whether pikuach
nefesh overrides Shabbat (dechuyah). This article
will explore other questions that may be contingent on the question
of hutrah vs. dechuyah.

Minimizing the Melacha

The Gemara, Shabbat 128b, quotes a Beraita
that if one must violate Shabbat to treat a yoledet (a
pregnant woman who is in an advanced stage of labor), one should try
to perform the melacha in an abnormal manner (shinui)
in order to minimize the melacha involved. If it can't
be done in an abnormal manner, one may perform the melacha in
its normal manner.

Ramban, Torat Ha'Adam, Sha'ar HaSakanah,
deduces from this Beraita that when violating Shabbat for
pikuach nefesh purposes, one should try to do whatever
possible to minimize the melacha involved (if it will not
cause any delay in treatment of the patient). Maggid
Mishneh, Hilchot Shabbat 2:11 contends that Rambam
disagrees with the opinion of Ramban on this matter. Rambam,
Hilchot Shabbat 2:11, records the requirement to minimize the
melacha regarding a yoledet. However, regarding a
life threatening situation, Rambam, Hilchot Shabbat 2:1, omits
any requirement to minimize the melacha involved. R.
Yitzchak Z. Soloveitchik, Chiddushei Maran Riz HaLevi, Yoma
pg. 52, explains that a yoledet is not in a life threatening
situation. The reason why one is permitted to violate Shabbat
to treat her is because failure to treat her may lead to a life
threatening situation. Therefore, the treatments must be done
in a way that minimizes the melacha. However, there is
no requirement to minimize the melacha involved in treating
someone who is already in a life threatening situation.

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 328:4,
implies that regarding a life threatening situation, there is no
requirement to minimize the melacha involved.
Nevertheless, Rama, Orach Chaim 328:12, rules that one should
try to minimize the melacha involved in whatever way possible.

Some Acharonim (R. Shlomo Kluger, HaElef L'cha
Shlomo, Orach Chaim 297 and R. Malkiel Tannenbaum, Divrei
Malkiel 4:15) explain that the dispute between Shulchan Aruch
and Rama is contingent on whether pikuach nefesh on Shabbat is
hutrah or dechuyah. R. Tannenbaum adds that the
Gemara, Yoma 6b, states that the term dechuyah connotes
that if there is a possibility of minimizing the prohibition, one
must do so. [This statement is not said regarding life saving
missions but rather regarding the principle of tumah dechuya
b'tzibbur, the concept that ritual impurity is overridden for the
communal sacrificial order.]

Use of a Non-Jew to Save a
Life

Another issue that may relate to the question of
hutrah or dechuyah is the use of a non-Jew or a minor
for life saving missions. If one assumes that pikuach nefesh
on Shabbat is dechuyah, it should follow that if there is a
need to perform melacha for pikuach nefesh purposes and
there is a non-Jew or minor available, one should employ the non-Jew
or the minor in order to minimize the melacha involved.
Yet, a Beraita quoted in the Gemara, Yoma 84b,
states that one should not seek out a non-Jew or a minor for life
saving missions on Shabbat. Tosafot, ad loc., s.v. Ela,
explain that one should not seek out a non-Jew or a minor out of
concern that they may not act as quickly to perform the life saving
mission. However, Ran, Yoma 4b, s.v. V'Ain,
explains that the reason why one should not seek out a minor or a
non-Jew is because there is a concern for a future calamity.
One of the bystanders may deduce that in a life threatening
situation, one must attempt to find a minor or a non-Jew to perform
melacha. In the future, he may be in a position to
respond to a life threatening situation and his initial reaction will
be to seek out a non-Jew or a minor. If neither of them is
available, the delay may endanger the life of the patient.

Presumably, the practical difference between the
opinion of Tosafot and the opinion of Ran should be limited.
Regardless of the reason, the Beraita states unequivocally
that one should not seek out a non-Jew or a minor for a life saving
mission. In fact, Or Zarua, Shabbat no. 38, sides
with the opinion of Tosafot that the reason why one does not seek out
a non-Jew or a minor is out of concern that they may not respond as
quickly. Yet, he concludes that even in a situation where it is
known that there will be no delay, one may still not use a non-Jew or
a minor. However, Rama, Orach Chaim 328:12, rules that
if there is a non-Jew available and there will be absolutely no delay
if he performs the life saving mission, it is preferable to use the
non-Jew in order to avoid melacha performed by a Jew.

Rama's ruling does not go uncontested. Taz,
Orach Chaim 328:5, claims that even if one accepts the
possibility of seeking out a non-Jew according to Tosafot, one must
still be concerned about a future calamity. Basing himself on
the opinion of Ran, Taz notes that every life-threatening
situation serves as an informal training session in handling
emergencies for all who are present. Therefore, one should shun
the practice of seeking out non-Jews or minors. Furthermore, one
should assign performance of melacha in life threatening
situations to the rabbis and leaders of the community in order to
teach the importance of pikuach nefesh on Shabbat.

R. Tannenbaum, op. cit., explains that if one
assumes that pikuach nefesh on Shabbat is hutrah, there
is no need to seek out a non-Jew or minor to perform the melacha.
Only if one assumes that pikuachnefesh is dechuyah
is it possible to require one to seek out a non-Jew or a minor in
order to minimize the melacha involved.

However, R. Moshe Feinstein, Igrot Moshe,
Choshen Mishpat 2:79, claims that the question of whether to
seek out a non-Jew or a minor is not dependent on the question of
hutrah or dechuyah. If there is a life
threatening situation where one option involves no melacha but
does involve delay and the other involves melacha but no
delay, one would certainly choose the latter, even if pikuach
nefesh on Shabbat is dechuyah. If neither option
involves any delay but one involves melacha and the other does
not, one should choose the option that involves no melacha,
even if pikuach nefesh on Shabbat is hutrah. R.
Feinstein suggests that the question of hutrah or dechuyah
is limited to a situation where there are multiple parties (or one
party with multiple options) obligated to perform a commandment and
one of those parties can perform the commandment in a manner that
would involve no prohibition. This does not apply to a
situation where one must choose between an adult Jew and a non-Jew or
minor. Neither the non-Jew nor the minor has an obligation to
perform the life saving mission. Therefore, the adult Jew is
assigned the primary responsibility of carrying out the life saving
mission. There is no need to seek out a non-Jew even if pikuach
nefesh on Shabbat is dechuyah. Rama's ruling
that one should seek out a non-Jew or a minor if there will be no
delay is only an added stringency and is not required from the letter
of the law. For this reason Taz shuns this practice out
of concern that it will lead to a future calamity. If there was
a true requirement to seek out a non-Jew, the concern for a future
calamity would not be sufficient to permit violation of melacha
by an adult Jew when there is a non-Jew or minor available.

R. Feinstein implies that the question of whether
one must perform the melacha in an abnormal manner is not
contingent on the question of hutrah or dechuyah.
One must explain that even if pikuach nefesh on Shabbat is
hutrah, there is still a requirement to minimize the melacha
involved if it will cause no delay. [Nevertheless, one is still
compelled to understand the opinion of Maggid Mishneh - that
there is no requirement to perform the melacha in an abnormal
manner - as based on a more expansive approach to hutrah.]